The weakness of MSU armies *should* be that those low-quality units can get wiped off the board early by the higher quality units of a low-activation army. The rule that stops minis dying when out of LOS (while also giving their mates out in the open heavy cover) stops that being the reality.

That isn't the only factor at play here, obviously, but I do think it's a significant one.

18 minutes ago, colki said:

The weakness of MSU armies *should* be that those low-quality units can get wiped off the board early by the higher quality units of a low-activation army. The rule that stops minis dying when out of LOS (while also giving their mates out in the open heavy cover) stops that being the reality.

That isn't the only factor at play here, obviously, but I do think it's a significant one.

That's an issue I'd like to see addressed. Everyone that plays snipers puts the spotter behind a wall, and then they magically are holding the rifle when the actual sniper is killed. I'd love to see that changed, either by causing the weapon to be lost if not within LOS of each other, or by causing the unit to take a recover action to recover the rifle.

I've grown increasingly fond of the the idea of the player with fewer activations gets to "pass" if they want.

The more I play, the more I see how the game is largely about managing the economy of your two actions and limiting exposure to enemy fire. You all probably think this is obvious, but coming from a wargame background where there is little IGOUGO or simultaneous damage (or the lovely random activations of the Command and Colors series), I was stuck am thinking more in terms of just position.

So basically, in the kind of game Legion is, the power to wait until an opponent stretches out their neck, and then pounce (hopefully going last/first) beats everything else. To that end, max activations and max token control is best, hence Snipers and Sabs, on top of max cheap Corps.

It's not really an MSU problem, at least not as traditionally framed. The units that allow you activation superiority could be pretty weak (like the useless horse carts in Conflict of Heroes that nontheless could be used to exhaust your opponent's MG nest once it was activated by making them walk and forth behind a hill).

To be honest I think Snipers are pretty weak. Sure they do chip damage and suppression, yet very often the best way to play against them is to avoid them. Sabs are way more potent, just harder to use.

46 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

That's an issue I'd like to see addressed. Everyone that plays snipers puts the spotter behind a wall, and then they magically are holding the rifle when the actual sniper is killed. I'd love to see that changed, either by causing the weapon to be lost if not within LOS of each other, or by causing the unit to take a recover action to recover the rifle.

We’re just talking two wounds, and if you, flank/melee then, it negates that play tactic.

Is this just that players don’t want to adapt their play style to deal with units of different types? Like, if someone were to run 6 flamethrower squads, would players not try to adjust by kiting?

2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

We’re just talking two wounds, and if you, flank/melee then, it negates that play tactic.

Is this just that players don’t want to adapt their play style to deal with units of different types? Like, if someone were to run 6 flamethrower squads, would players not try to adjust by kiting?

Huh? If they're positioned right, your flankers would still have the same problem of only seeing one mini at a time. That also assumes that your opponent isn't going to try and block your flankers, or take advantage of your move to grab the objective, both of which work out in their favor for only minor cost. Snipers are usually position towards the back of the field, so you're going to have to work pretty hard to properly flank them and get them within range, and I doubt your opponent will just let you do that.

53 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

That's an issue I'd like to see addressed. Everyone that plays snipers puts the spotter behind a wall, and then they magically are holding the rifle when the actual sniper is killed. I'd love to see that changed, either by causing the weapon to be lost if not within LOS of each other, or by causing the unit to take a recover action to recover the rifle.

If you cannot draw line of sight to the spotter when assigning wounds, doesn't that mean they would be forced to lose the sniper miniature?

On 6/21/2019 at 2:19 PM, TauntaunScout said:

I am all for “fixing” staleness. But in the ancient history of the 90’s, GW often fixed tournament predictably by making the lists selectively LESS restrictive. Not more restrictive.

This. ^ If you don't like mult-sniper lists try to put together (lists and styles) something that stops it. The best cure in any meta is finding solutions to exploit them.

5 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

If you cannot draw line of sight to the spotter when assigning wounds, doesn't that mean they would be forced to lose the sniper miniature?

In a strike team, the model with the rifle is the leader, when the leader dies, a new leader is assigned with the remaining minis (ex. the binocular guy).

So they should lose the special weapon then no?

2 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

So they should lose the special weapon then no?

No, the sniper is the unit leader. You would kill it, then make the other unit the leader (sniper).

9 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

So they should lose the special weapon then no?

As arnoldrew said, the spotter then becomes the sniper, as if the rifle fell from the sky right into his arms. something that mitigates this would be great, either by making the spotter the leader (like IRL sniper teams) or an exhaust mechanic.

22 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Huh? If they're positioned right, your flankers would still have the same problem of only seeing one mini at a time. That also assumes that your opponent isn't going to try and block your flankers, or take advantage of your move to grab the objective, both of which work out in their favor for only minor cost. Snipers are usually position towards the back of the field, so you're going to have to work pretty hard to properly flank them and get them within range, and I doubt your opponent will just let you do that.

If they’re on the flank, and the sniper is hiding from the fore, in what geometric and move-1 legal location could neither the flank nor the fore see both minis?

I wonder if they made the Sniper rifles Cumbersome if it would solve the ‘problem’?

This way if your sniper die and the other figure becomes the Leader (sniper), it could not move out of cover and shoot in the same round.

On 6/23/2019 at 9:40 AM, Alpha17 said:

It would definitely hurt the CIS. The larger units are to help make up for the lack of effective die. The price of the units is to help turn them into a swarm, but if you limit the number of corps units to 4 and/or limit total activations to 9, they are completely useless as a faction.

I'm not sure I follow. They require 5 units of Rogers minimum to function? I don't see why that's any more true of Battle Droids than Stormtroopers or any other Corp unit. If that were the case, shouldn't they be something like 5-8 instead of 3-6?

2 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

I'm not sure I follow. They require 5 units of Rogers minimum to function? I don't see why that's any more true of Battle Droids than Stormtroopers or any other Corp unit. If that were the case, shouldn't they be something like 5-8 instead of 3-6?

Their AI ability would seem to greatly benefit from the more units there are.

1 minute ago, Derrault said:

Their AI ability would seem to greatly benefit from the more units there are.

Do you mean the coordinate rule? I'm not sure how much that's really a scaling benefit as a way to keep the pretty massive downside that is the AI rule from stopping you from taking multiples of them. The two rules mostly just function together to require however many of them you take to somewhat work in a block instead of being able to spread out.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

Do you mean the coordinate rule? I'm not sure how much that's really a scaling benefit as a way to keep the pretty massive downside that is the AI rule from stopping you from taking multiples of them. The two rules mostly just function together to require however many of them you take to somewhat work in a block instead of being able to spread out.

Well, they do enable long distance order granting, like a telephone line, and you get to grant orders to 7 different units, even on something like Ambush, so that’s not nothing.

13 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I've grown increasingly fond of the the idea of the player with fewer activations gets to "pass" if they want

This is a nice idea, but if you carry it through it can lead to an unpleasant outcome. Effectively you are now giving a "deathball" player 0 cost activation padding units that cannot be killed!

I'd argue that a meta filled with iconic corps troops bulking up most armies is far preferable to one where every army is expensive commanders + big tough vehicles with 12 stormtroopers cowering at the back hoping not to get noticed while they fulfill the "minimum corps" role.

It always amuses me when I see people complaining that most armies have *too many stormtroopers* in a Star Wars game.

1 hour ago, colki said:

This is a nice idea, but if you carry it through it can lead to an unpleasant outcome. Effectively you are now giving a "deathball" player 0 cost activation padding units that cannot be killed!

I'd argue that a meta filled with iconic corps troops bulking up most armies is far preferable to one where every army is expensive commanders + big tough vehicles with 12 stormtroopers cowering at the back hoping not to get noticed while they fulfill the "minimum corps" role.

It always amuses me when I see people complaining that most armies have *too many stormtroopers* in a Star Wars game.

What is the "unpleasant outcome" of giving low activation high impact armies a chance to hold their powder?

Also, I don't think most people (certainly not myself) bemoan "too many storm troopers," though perhaps they do bemoan many of the iconic troops not being taken at all in favor of snipers which have never been featured.

The problem is that, as I explained above, the meta shifts to few high-powered activations with corps taken as a "tax", because now that double AT-ST army is actually *better* at stalling than the other guys fluffy 501st list, as well as more killy.

If you've never seen the "corps spam" moans then good for you!

Like key positions before it , strike team spam will likely be looked at and adjusted for. I mean at the WC 23 out of 24 possible slots were used up with strike teams and 20 were snipers.

That's bound to be quite telling to the developers that everyone at high level play is currently ignoring

Pathfinders

Wookie warriors

Commando full teams

Death troopers and IRG except via Entourage.

Scout trooper full units.

Along with that you also have the following being ignored

Vader

All armor

All rebel leaders except the twins

Chewbacca

Thats a large percentage of the game unrepresented, I'm sure they are taking notice

1 minute ago, syrath said:

Like key positions before it , strike team spam will likely be looked at and adjusted for. I mean at the WC 23 out of 24 possible slots were used up with strike teams and 20 were snipers.

That's bound to be quite telling to the developers that everyone at high level play is currently ignoring

Pathfinders

Wookie warriors

Commando full teams

Death troopers and IRG except via Entourage.

Scout trooper full units.

Along with that you also have the following being ignored

Vader

All armor

All rebel leaders except the twins

Chewbacca

Thats a large percentage of the game unrepresented, I'm sure they are taking notice

It’s basically coincidence at this point.

How many lists that were near identical to some of the top 8 do you think competed in the prior tournaments and went nowhere hmm? Many. And they lost to players not running the “meta”.

As @TalkPolite is fond of noting, these players put a lot of time and effort into learning to play one particular list;

If they had chosen to work with a different list, that’s what would be up there. It’s not the strike teams, it’s the players. To say otherwise discounts the reality that many players using strike teams in the lower levels lost to those not using them, and it is basically saying: but for strike teams, the top 8 would be entirely different players.

20 hours ago, Derrault said:

If they’re on the flank, and the sniper is hiding from the fore, in what geometric and move-1 legal location could neither the flank nor the fore see both minis?

No, that's fair. I was specifically referring to trying to take both out with your flanking force. Hitting them in a pincer is entirely valid, though it does, of course, require you to devote at least two units to the destruction of a single sniper team, and likely not one on turn 1 or two if you're able to maneuver that far.

49 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

No, that's fair. I was specifically referring to trying to take both out with your flanking force. Hitting them in a pincer is entirely valid, though it does, of course, require you to devote at least two units to the destruction of a single sniper team, and likely not one on turn 1 or two if you're able to maneuver that far.

Probably true, although, and I know it has a bad rap, but the 47 has the speed and base size such that it can reach out and touch something 4 feet away turn 1.

And of course, Pathfinders.

6 hours ago, colki said:

The problem is that, as I explained above, the meta shifts to few high-powered activations with corps taken as a "tax", because now that double AT-ST army is actually *better* at stalling than the other guys fluffy 501st list, as well as more killy.

If you've never seen the "corps spam" moans then good for you!

I don't see why you would expect the meta to swing violently the other way? Why would double AT-ST be better? It puts all units and builds on an even footing when it comes to activation. There is still a token control penalty. There is still attacks per turn efficiency where expensive units are penalized though usually more consistent in damage output (yes looking at you Z-6).

Unless you believe that the high impact units have their costs artificially decreased to account for their activation penalty, then an even footing should only produce balance.

Conversely you'd need to believe that Strike teams are artificially more expensive to compensate for their cheap activation padding, but I don't think anyone thinks that is the case.

And I have seen folks bemoan "corps spam", however when I see folks bemoan corps spam I don't see it as them saying "there are too many storm troopers," but rather, "there are not enough of the other iconic units." The points are there to bring an E-Web and Snows and Vader and Boba and still feel like your army is an army and not the Avengers, but the penalty is too great.

I don't mind seeing lots of storm troopers... I just mind how 3/4s of my pretty space dollies don't get on the table when I goto play a tourney in a store!